Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Raven Crowking]

The idea was a melee equivalent to finger of death.

I honestly don't see any difference between having an X% chance of dealing enough damage to kill you in one melee round and having an X% chance to killing you with one spell. Nor does the damage have to be 1,000 hps. The damage simply has to pass the threshold of any given character.

So, if I am 1st level, and I face an ogre, I am facing a death effect. I can tell you with great certainty that I have had PCs while I was DMing face ogres at levels where one blow provided an X% chance of death. I have faced the same sort of things as a player. No one cried bloody murder.

In 3e, this scales upwards to nearly all levels. There is almost always a monster of appropriate CR who has an X% chance of killing you in one round. If it wins initiative, that means an X% chance of killing you before you can take any action at all. Again, both as player and DM, I can say that no one cries bloody murder in my group when facing such creatures.

IMHO, there is no difference between a monster that has a 10% chance of dealing 40 hp damage each round (when you have 30 hp) and a spell that has a 10% chance of killing you. Except, perhaps, that the monster might last longer, and thus have more chances of killing you.

The number of dice rolled doesn't, IMHO, matter one whit -- what matters is (1) the % chance of dying that those dice represent, and (2) whether or not you can take action in between those die rolls.

As such, there are many, many melee encounters that are already equivilent to Finger of Death in 3e D&D. At least, IMHO there are. As such, I doubt very much that the feat you describe would be more than a blip on the radar for my group.....and it seems to me from the playtest reports like some of the 4e fighter abilities might be (to some degree) similar to what you describe.

4e might remove "SoD", but I very much doubt it will remove the SoD effect from the game. As 3e disguised THAC0 by flipping it around, I very much expect that 4e will disguise SoD by making you roll more dice to gain the same effect. And it will give PCs Action Points so that they can fudge their saves.


RC

 

[Cadfan]

Raven Crowking- That's an excellent explanation of why I think save-or-die is unnecessary.

If you want an encounter in which there's a very real chance a character will be killed by a single die roll, you can just toss him against an enemy that's out of his league.

We don't need a special category of abilities that are defined as being in a character's league for the purpose of making available encounters which are not, in fact, within a character's league. See what I mean? If a CR 4 enemy is equivalent to a save-or-die to a level 1 character, we don't need a special CR 1 monster that replicates that.

That's also one of the reasons I think save-or-die is inherently incompatible with a system of determining game balance.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.

2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.

The problem here is you, not the lack of PC death. You're continuing to play in a game which is unsuited to your preferences. What you should be doing is:

1. Quit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven Crowking- That's an excellent explanation of why I think save-or-die is unnecessary.

If you want an encounter in which there's a very real chance a character will be killed by a single die roll, you can just toss him against an enemy that's out of his league.

Or, we could just use SoD and an enemy that is in his league.....Thus having a very real chance that a character will be killed if the players handle the encounter in some ways, and a very real chance of victory if they handle the encounter in others.

(BTW, are you claiming that an ogre is out of the league of 4 1st level PCs? If so, I know players who would disagree with you....myself being one!)

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

DM: "He hits. You're dead."
Player: "What do you mean I'm dead?"
DM: "He hit you for 1032 points of damage. You're dead."

They would blow a fuse.

Noob players. Haven't they heard about the Frenzied Berserker PrC?

 

[Remathilis]

Or, we could just use SoD and an enemy that is in his league.....Thus having a very real chance that a character will be killed if the players handle the encounter in some ways, and a very real chance of victory if they handle the encounter in others.

(BTW, are you claiming that an ogre is out of the league of 4 1st level PCs? If so, I know players who would disagree with you....myself being one!)

RC

Or, you can have a 9th level wizard cast finger of death at a 16th level PC and be killed by a foe 7 levels below its league.

The ogre is a challenge for 1st level PCs. He's a threat to fourth level PCs, he's a nuisance to 8th level PCs. The ogre (barring freaky die-rolls) isn't killing a 10th level PC. He certainly isn't doing it in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. However, a 10th level wizard CAN kill a 20th level PC in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. Don't you see how that doesn't scale?

 

[Remathilis]

I honestly don't see any difference between having an X% chance of dealing enough damage to kill you in one melee round and having an X% chance to killing you with one spell. Nor does the damage have to be 1,000 hps. The damage simply has to pass the threshold of any given character.

Again, its the IFs that matter. IF the opponent hits. IF he doesn't roll a 1. IF he does enough damage to knock me to -10 or worse. That's more than the IF I don't roll low of a SoD

So, if I am 1st level, and I face an ogre, I am facing a death effect. I can tell you with great certainty that I have had PCs while I was DMing face ogres at levels where one blow provided an X% chance of death. I have faced the same sort of things as a player. No one cried bloody murder.

No, you're facing death. Death from a creature that needs to hit an AC, deal high enough random damage, and has to move into position to do it. I get some actions to mitigate it (not close in, use missile weapons, tanglefoot bags, etc). I don't with SoD other than foresee the possibility of it and negate the effect.

In 3e, this scales upwards to nearly all levels. There is almost always a monster of appropriate CR who has an X% chance of killing you in one round. If it wins initiative, that means an X% chance of killing you before you can take any action at all. Again, both as player and DM, I can say that no one cries bloody murder in my group when facing such creatures.

However, I have an AC. I have hp. I can be merely knocked into negatives and healed by the cleric. If I SoD and fail, I have one chance to keep in play.

IMHO, there is no difference between a monster that has a 10% chance of dealing 40 hp damage each round (when you have 30 hp) and a spell that has a 10% chance of killing you. Except, perhaps, that the monster might last longer, and thus have more chances of killing you.

Do you KNOW that monster does 40 without fail? If you're facing a foe that does 1d4+39 hp, you're facing an unbalanced monster. Otherwise, that creature has to close in, hit, and roll that 40 hp. I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure the odds of the creature closing in, hitting, and doing 40 damage is slightly lower than the odds of me rolling low on one die roll.

The number of dice rolled doesn't, IMHO, matter one whit -- what matters is (1) the % chance of dying that those dice represent, and (2) whether or not you can take action in between those die rolls.

OMG, yes it does. Want proof? Let's make a $100 wager. I give you 1d20, I'll roll 3d20 and take the highest number. Highest roll wins. deal?

As such, there are many, many melee encounters that are already equivalent to Finger of Death in 3e D&D. At least, IMHO there are. As such, I doubt very much that the feat you describe would be more than a blip on the radar for my group.....and it seems to me from the playtest reports like some of the 4e fighter abilities might be (to some degree) similar to what you describe.

Such as?

4e might remove "SoD", but I very much doubt it will remove the SoD effect from the game. As 3e disguised THAC0 by flipping it around, I very much expect that 4e will disguise SoD by making you roll more dice to gain the same effect. And it will give PCs Action Points so that they can fudge their saves.

Good. More dice, more checks to get past, more ways to mitigate disaster. Death happens, but its rare and not dependent on a single die roll.

Sounds like we finally agree!

 

[Raven Crowking]

He certainly isn't doing it in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. However, a 10th level wizard CAN kill a 20th level PC in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. Don't you see how that doesn't scale?

OK, first off, what matters IMHO is what can be done in a single round, and what the % chance of accomplishment is, not how many dice are rolled. ALL CAPPING a "SINGLE DIE ROLL" doesn't do it for me. If three dies result in a 5% chance of death, of 1 die roll results in a 5% chance of death, there is absolutely no difference AFAICT.

As to scaling, I'll certainly agree that all effects don't scale equally.....but this is hardly exclusive to SoD effects. If this was not so, there would not be character parties or character builds that are stronger or weaker than their level....some wildly so.

Overall, though, I play a game in which the players, through their actions, determine the level of "balance" that they want. Typically, they hope to unbalance things in their favour. I don't buy into the idea that the DM should artificially re-balance things because the PCs have tipped them into their favour. Nor do I artificially re-balance them if the PCs get in over their heads.

Things like elegance, balance, and scaling are fine in theory, and when they don't interfere with the game that I am trying to run they can be useful. But, ultimately, if elegance interferes with the desired experience, it goes out the window. Likewise, balance and scaling. Let the players decide what they want to risk, and what rewards they want to pursue. Let them decide what enemies they need to mollify for now, and which they can afford to ignore. If their decisions lead them into a point where they need to SoD against a 10th level caster, so be it.

I am not writing a story when I run a game. The story is the result of the game. Some stories are stories of victory and triumph (even over incredible odds), while others are stories of how half the party got massacred when they split up in dangerous environs and started just knocking on doors.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, its the IFs that matter. IF the opponent hits. IF he doesn't roll a 1. IF he does enough damage to knock me to -10 or worse. That's more than the IF I don't roll low of a SoD

IF the chance of winning initiative, hitting, and doing enough damage to kill you, is equal to the chance of your losing initiative and blowing your save, THEN the odds are equal, no matter how many dice are rolled.


RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's an extremely long-winded way of saying, "no, I can't provide such a quote."

Nope, it's a long-winded, and admittantly equally snarky, way of saying "No, and I shouldn't need to provide such a quote, seeing we're talking D&D." I apologize for the snark...eye for an eye went out of fashio 2000 years ago, after all. I'm not apologizing for the assumption that somebody who argues D&D has understood the basic premises of DMing D&D as they are laid out even in the most recent version of the DMG in very prominent and hard to overlook strokes.